MAGA Red Wave in '26 and Immigration

 

Here we are, just rounding the first 1/8 turn of the second Trump administration. Things are looking good so far, better than expected.

International affairs are going better than anyone thought they would, with serious thought being given to awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Donald Trump. What's more, his use of tariffs and focus on getting America back to a favorable balance of trade looks like it might rev up our economy without landing us in a recession, or excessively driving up inflation.

The MAHA agenda, with Robert Kennedy Jr. at the HHS helm seems to be making steady progress. Since the whole agenda there is necessarily driven at the pace of good science, any big changes will probably come later.

Meaningful reforms are already coming in the military, as Secretary of Defense Hegseth makes good on his promises to return it to being a lethal, effective fighting force.. Likewise, the recently passed Big Beautiful Bill, along with the rescission package are a strong beginning. With those votes in the rear view mirror, the congress might actually get to many more of the recommendations made by DOGE to rein in governmental waste, fraud, and abuse.

Even on the perennially unsolvable issue of illegal immigration, this administration's fierce initial approach has resulted in reducing the flow of illegal migrants across our border to a trickle. That is a solid beginning. This is, however, the one issue that we must focus on, because it could make or break the entire MAGA agenda. Illegal immigration will prove to be either the Achilles heel of the MAGA movement or its' greatest achievement, and it will all come down to whether we will just remain hard headed about it, or convert to a stance of hard headed compassion.

The 2026 midterms are coming at us like a freight train, just a couple more turns down the road. A year from now that election will loom like a dark cloud over the national mind. The conventional wisdom is that the party in power usually loses seats in the midterm, and we must not let that happen. If the Democrats gain just a few seats in the House, and maintain at least the filibuster option in the Senate, these first two years might eventually be seen as the high water mark of the MAGA movement.

If the Democrats gain control of the House, as seems likely, that will scuttle almost the entire agenda. Impeachment will fill the air, and it won't be aimed solely at the President. Certainly, Big Pharma can be counted on to bring the impeachment gun to bear on Kennedy. Even if others are not impeached, those like Tom Homan will be forced to spend more time in Washington, answering to committees, than in doing their jobs.

On the other hand, Illegal immigration could prove to be the Republican's breakthrough issue of the 26 midterms. If we could get the hard headed among us to accept a modified stance, we could not only manage to barely hold our own, we might turn 26 into a red wave landslide. There is a real chance we could get to a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, while increasing our majority in the House. We might then, for the first time in a long time, have one party national government. Then, with no excuses for failure, the nation can decide if we have done a good enough job to continue in power after Trump. Then, and only then, we might be be on the verge of making America great again.

To get to the heart of the issue, what we have to do is modify our hard headed, absolutely NO AMNESTY stance with some realistic compassion. This plan necessarily contains some fine nuance (it can't be a repeat of the 1986 debacle), which will be explained in a bit, but first let's look at how unrealistic, and fictional, the NO AMNESTY stance is.

As a conservative guess, there are probably at least 30 million illegal migrants here today. They mostly have close attachments, via children (citizens who will remain citizens even if birthright citizenship is ended. No Ex Post Facto laws allowed, remember?), in-laws, and friends. So, at a minimum we are talking about a deportation process that will have traumatic effect on 50 or more million people, many of whom voted for Trump in 24.

Chances are they will switch their votes in 26 if things keep going like they are, and that will hand at least the House to the Democrats. That could possibly render the entire MAGA movement a soon forgotten footnote in the history of the decline of the American republic. Trump can't run again, so we have only this one shot. We best not blow it.

Look at how things have actually been going. Yes, it appears that a million or so illegal immigrants have been detained and or deported, and once again, the border has been closed. That is a good start.

But most of the deportees have been the despicable criminals and gang members nobody wanted in the first place, along with those self deportees who were probably intending to leave soon anyway. In other words, they were the low hanging fruit. Even with all that going for the deportation process, the administration still had to resort to multiple deployments of the National Guard to assist ICE, and the almost unheard of deployment of American combat forces on American soil.

To get from one million to 30 million, we will have to double that effort, and then double it again, and then double it again, and then double it again, and then double it yet again. Even now, many of the immigrant's home countries refuse to repatriate them, so we shunt them to third countries. That will work only in the short term and in small numbers. In large numbers, dumping unemployed foreigners will result in criminal gangs running amok in those countries, who will then also refuse them.

It is hard to see how we can continue, let alone accelerate, down this path without resorting to martial law. Especially because of the resistance in sanctuary cities and states. That might require dozens, if not hundreds of National Guard and regular military deployments, making America resemble a police state.

Disturbingly, some of the brutal immigration enforcement looks like the worst form of scapegoating. You know the drill. The people are deeply frustrated about never seeing any elites arrested and convicted, no matter how great their crimes. That kind of anger can be and historically has been transferred, by sly leaders, to some other group, some scapegoat. Then, suffering is inflicted on the scapegoats while the truly guilty go forgotten. Evil leaders have worked that game many times in the past.

Don't try to argue the current American people are too smart for that. It is to laugh. What's worst, this scapegoating looks like, and might actually be, a continuation of the racist heritage we almost all say we want to leave in the past.

If we continue down this path, we will probably become a police state, or fall into some form of civil war, or most probably both: low level civil war and authoritarianism. America will become an armed camp. Our deportation efforts will likely become an avoidable slow burning humanitarian disaster, not solve the problem of illegal immigration and resemble genocide.

All of that will likely follow if we stick to the hard headed, absolutely NO AMNESTY approach. Or rather, our false version of that approach because let's be real here, that NO AMNESTY thing is a fiction to begin with. There is no intention of applying that hard headed logic to all the illegal employers. If NO AMNESTY were applied to illegal employers today, almost all the meat packing, construction and agri-business concerns would quickly be put out of business. Not only would they lose their workers, but they would be fined into bankruptcy, that is if we were serious about NO AMNESTY to law breakers.

Many will shout, “Whoa up and hold on there sport. A strict application of the law to deprive billionaires of some of their millions of dollars is a bridge too far, a tragedy too great to consider.” They will say this while asserting that ruining the lives of millions of weak and defenseless workers is perfectly alright. This is scapegoating in action.

So that NO AMNESTY thing will, in the fine tradition of American euphemism and equivocation, fall apart in the wink and nod, backroom dealings of the good old boy network. We all suspect that is how it will end, after we witness a time of highly publicized brutal enforcement. When immigration enforcement starts hitting the bottom line of some big campaign donors, the vigor of law enforcement will peter out, and things will go back to how they used to be. The problem of illegal immigration will remain unsolved. That is the way it has gone before, and that is how things will probably go this time.

That is what happened in 1986, and that is why amnesty did not work then. Amnesty to illegal immigrants, with the border remaining porous, was just an open invitation to more illegal immigration, and that is what we got. Instead, we must first close the border, which we have done, and make sure it stays closed, which will require an ending of ALL illegal employment. It might also include expanding the wall where appropriate, but that is a relatively small side matter.

Enacting and vigorously enforcing strong laws against illegal employment will be the key factor in keeping the border closed. We have simply to turn off the jobs magnet attracting the workers.

Enforcement of immigration laws will, contrary to those defending illegal employment, be an easy fix. Simply attach hefty fines to every instance of illegal employment, and make half the fine money payable, as a bounty, to those who report it. That approach would make enforcement very effective, and profoundly cost effective.

In fact, that way of doing it would be so effective that it would actually threaten the economic well being of many big corporations. Then the real world benefits of this policy would come to the fore. Rather than allowing themselves to go broke, the big corporate illegal employers would be forced to make their arguments in transparent public debate, and not just in smoke filled back rooms. When the big business folks have to make their arguments public, we will probably soon discover that in some fields, such as agriculture and meat processing, we really do need some foreign workers

With the real issues around illegal immigration finally up for transparent public discussion, we could then move forward to find agreement on real solutions to the problem of illegal immigration. Consider the following possible agenda.

.

Any such solution will have to be based on keeping the border tightly closed. The first step has to be that everyone who comes in to this country comes in through the front door, in compliance with our laws, whatever we decide those laws will be. And that closure must be maintained for as long as the border exists.

The next stage in the plan is to establish some date certain, in the near future, at which time all illegal employees, and their employers, are required to identify all illegal workers. At that time each worker will be assigned a provisional green card, with bio-metric data attached and downloaded to a data base.. After that date, any worker without such a card, and file in the data base, is subject to immediate deportation and the employer is subject to a fine, if not criminal prosecution.

Concurrent with that, each of the workers is entered into and subjected to a vetting process, the provisions of which will have already been established and made transparent to the public. These protocols will be designed to determine who deserves to gain permanent green card status.

These protocols will be based on things like time in country, legal record, work history, character references from friends and employers, record of family use or abuse of government services, and things like that. That way, a person who has been here twenty years, worked hard, paid their bills and kept their nose clean will be relatively assured, even before entering into the process, of gaining a permanent card. That way, much opposition to the plan will be muted.

On the other hand, those who engaged in criminality, or who lived on the edge of the law, or were illegitimately brought in during Biden's open border fiasco, or who came here to game our system and take advantage of our compassion, will be filtered out.

While that vetting process is being carried out, all employees, legal or illegal, will, for the first time, have equal legal status. That means minimum wage, safety, and worker benefits laws will be in force. That alone will make it to where native born Americans will once again be able to compete for jobs in those fields. As the vetting process continues, many of the foreign born illegal workers will be gone, and even more native born workers will take their place.

Once again it must be emphasized that a closed border will have to be a permanent fact for this plan to work. From this point forward there will be no new illegal workers coming in. That will be the big difference compared to 1986. Then, over the course of just a few years, with our economy expanding as expected, the formerly illegal workers will be absorbed into an open, free and fair market. The problem of illegal immigration will largely be solved. Then we can have full employment, with a dignified, legally protected and decent life for all workers.

That is the plan to solve it, but before we can get there, we must first recognize and deal with the true bad guys in this scenario. There are clearly some very powerful and entrenched special interests that want the illegal immigration situation to stay exactly where it is. (One wonders if some of them aren't among those pressing so strongly for the NO AMNESTY fiction, so as to prevent any real solutions from being presented.).

The two major bad actors here are the commercial interests who desire an ongoing supply of low cost and legally marginalized workers, and the gangs and drug cartels south of the border who want easy access to our nation for their nefarious activities, such as drug and human trafficking. Those groups are very influential and will work hard to prevent any solution to the illegal immigration problem, a problem which makes them filthy rich. So we had better be fully prepared for their intense opposition when we do agree on a solution.

The pivotal issue to consider in defeating them is the rule of law. This factor is naturally our best tool because the rule of law unites us: it empowers the people to be certain we are in the right. This is THE issue that corrupt politicians (by definition) and corporate greedmeisters (by inclination) want to ignore.

As an example, think about how ignoring the rule of law effects workers in just one kind of job; janitorial work. It used to be that janitors were paid by the hour as employees, with benefits, overtime, vacations, insurance and such. These days that work is mostly subcontracted out,(largely to illegals) so the worker has no benefits and is expected to pay their own taxes. It’s still very low paid work, averaging little more than ten to fifteen dollars an hour, and the worker, as stated, is expected to pay the taxes out of that. The situation is similar in other trades, such as construction and landscaping.

Most of the illegal workers simply don’t pay their taxes, which maximizes their take home pay, allowing them to pay for their own benefits. And there is a tendency to have the government subsidize their pay by relying on emergency rooms for medical care. The only way for an American to compete is to take a job that after taxes brings home less than seven to ten dollars an hour, or to take the risk of not paying the taxes.

If the IRS comes after the illegal for back taxes, they can go underground, get a new phony ID, take a temporary deportation, or maybe just take their savings and depart for home. On the other hand, if the IRS comes after the American worker, they’re in a lot of trouble, with almost no place to hide. So the situation is that if the American is going to compete with the illegal, they tend to move to a marginalized legal status, effectively working under the table, just like the illegal. That’s how it is working today, how it has always worked when the law is being ignored, and how it will always work. Lawlessness always begets more lawlessness.

Now consider how this microcosm plays out when repeated millions of times over many years. (As a side note, it is clear that the illegal community is composed of more than just Mexican nationals, but the situation between our two nations is so unique and we are so closely tied together that the discussion will be simplified to make the point.)

Basically, if the rule of law continues to be ignored, (if we allow lawlessness to continue it will only get worse) the status of Mexican and migrant workers, both in this nation and in Mexico, will stay the same or slowly get worse, and the status of American workers (wages, protections, security, etc) will, over the course of years, be brought down to that level. This has been happening for decades now, and is a major factor in the widening disparity between rich and poor in this nation.

On the other hand, if we insist on the rule of law, requiring our government to do the will of the people and forcing businesses to obey the law, the status of the American workers (wages, benefits...) will stay the same as today, or tend to slowly improve, and the status of the Mexican and migrant workers, in this nation and in Mexico, will slowly be brought up to that level. Thus, many of the economic issues facing the masses will improve if we reject illegality and instead embrace the rule of law.

This might seem anti business to some, but it really isn’t. It must be acknowledged that the forces of commerce can be a great benefit to society, but there is a tendency of business to be guided by runaway greed, exploiting the weak and corrupting governments. It’s not that business is immoral, rather it is amoral. Like a mindless, amoral beast, it will take as much as it is allowed to take, and just like a beast, if we stand up and say no, it will obey us and stand down.

If we stand up and tell the forces of commerce that they can no longer ignore the law to exploit desperate Mexicans and weaken the status of low skilled Americans, they will turn tail like Bud Light after the boycott. They will behave much like a dog caught trying to steal a steak off the grill at a cookout. They will look up, offer a falsely friendly smile, wag their tails, and change their plans.

They will probably think something like, “Darn, I was making a killing off that setup. Now I can't make so much money off the illegal Mexican workers. Since they are all in Mexico, why don’t I figure out how to make some money, maybe not as much, but some, off them in Mexico. While I’m at it maybe I’ll invest some time and effort into cleaning up the situation in Mexico so I can regularize and maximize that stream of profit.”

In that way, solving the illegal immigration problem by compassionately returning to the rule of law will benefit all working people, in this and other countries, and only minimally reduce the wealth of the already wealthy.

If we conservatives can do this, if we can temper our absolute NO AMNESTY determination with some hard headed compassion; a compassion that will truly and peacefully return us to the rule of law, then we could very well generate a true red wave in November of 26. If by September of 26 it looks like the issue of illegal immigration, can, under Republican governance, actually be solved without causing a humanitarian disaster in the process, we will likely prevail mightily and the MAGA agenda will continue on to greatness.

In the election of 2024, it was clear that the American people turned with revulsion away from the Democrat agenda of anti American, anti Christian DEI, LGBTQ and basically communist economic ideology. If we Republicans allow NO AMNESTY absolutism to be the sole driver of our thinking on immigration, many of those same voters will tend to turn back to the Democrats. After four years of being out of power, and hence out of mind, the latest re-packaging of commie lies from the left might be made to sound good. To the undecided masses it could look like a fresh and attractive alternative to the militarism, racism, fear and loathing that will seem to be on offer from the Republicans.

If we continue on our present agenda of hard headed militaristic mass deportation, we will find that the American people, long term, don't have the stomach for it. Then the problem will go unsolved, (like always) and the Republicans will have to scramble to hold on to any power in 26, Which will probably result in a President AOC, or something like that, in 28. All our present gains could be quickly wiped out.

Reforms of the military will be reversed. The Supreme Court might well get packed. Abortion would be re-legalized nationally, MAHA will die, and Big Pharma, and Big Food and Agra will be re enthroned. Worst of all, the national movement toward moral revival will be viciously attacked as DEI is again foisted on us with renewed determination.

What's more, we will deserve that fate; of our so called Christian moral revival fizzling. That is if we can't find a way to fulfill our desire for a return to the rule of law without brutalizing the weakest among us. Along the same lines, we Americans have also traditionally scapegoated the weak, turning a blind eye to the depredations of the rich and powerful.

If we fall, once again, for this traditional American double sided moral compromise, we truly will deserve to fall. If, on the other hand, we can find a way to apply our Christian compassion, in a hard headed way, to the problem of illegal immigration, we will demonstrate that we deserve a chance to govern even after Donald Trump exits the scene, to go all the way in making America great again.

Our fate in 2026, the fate of the MAGA movement, indeed the fate of our once glorious republic depends on our ability to think outside the box. We must find a way to apply our Christian sensibilities to the problem of illegal immigration without succumbing to either brutal repression or passive surrender to runaway globalism. This has been a presentation of one way we can do that. Can we join together to pray for God's wisdom, courage, and faith as we move forward to improve on and carry out this project?

Happy (Constitutional) 4th of July

 

With the 4^th of July once again upon us, it is time to put some finishing touches to the reasons to support and revive our Constitution. Coherent thought is long overdue on this subject. In fact, much of our current social breakdown is a result of many folks gravitating toward the numerous half thought out alternatives to our constitutional republic that are being advocated these days.

First of all, many say that our Constitution should be dismissed out of hand; that it was written by a bunch of White male plutocrats to entrench themselves in power. Like all effective lies, there is some truth to this charge, but it is just a half truth. Yes, the founders were White men, and many, but not all, of them were wealthy. In fact though, many of them died penniless.

More importantly, this particular group of plutocrats were caught in a unique set of historical circumstances. This unique set of circumstances impelled them to produce a system of government which served the people far better than any previous system of government ever had. In fact it probably ended up being better for the masses, especially with the addition of the Bill of Rights, than many of the plutocrats probably wanted. Certainly, within ten years, one of the founders, John Adams, was working to defy First Amendment limitations.

In 1787 the Articles of Confederation were falling apart. That was our original constitution, our original basis of government, that had been slapped together during the crisis of war,. That system of government was failing, and we looked likely to slip into 13 different nations, or at best two or three competing nations. It looked as though the newly born nation was going to fall into disunity, and thereby be easy pickings for the powers of Europe (especially Great Britain) to swoop back in and, one by one, dominate the states,. If that happened, those “plutocrats”, our founders, knew that their lives would be shortened, and probably end swinging on a hangman's noose.

So this group of well educated men knew that their only real hope for survival lay in establishing a system of government that could hold all the states together as the United States. Their problem was further complicated because they knew that the people of this new nation were restive, skeptical of bad government, and that they were the most well read and politically astute populace in the world.

So the founders were motivated to apply all their learning and creativity about government, and put together a structure that appealed to the masses, and yet could last over time. They gave us republic, if we can keep it, which has sustained for nearly 250 years.

While our republic has sustained for a couple centuries, it isn't really thriving today. To most of us, it appears to be circling the drain, showing the classic symptoms of the last stages of a declining republic with widespread corruption, forever wars, and poisonous bread and circuses for the apathetic masses.

To fix this mess some propose a new constitutional convention, or at least an Article Five convention to fix this one. Such folks neglect to notice that this is not the same political moment the founders faced in 1787. Those involved in said convention will not have the same motivations as those men did. Sadly, the most likely outcome of some convention for enacting new amendments will probably resemble the latest Democrat or Republican conventions, loaded with corruption and producing the sly tools of entrenched oligarchs.

Most of the utopian schemes of government that are currently advocated by many folks fall to pieces when they come up against those same rocks of real world political opposition. Any scheme or plan will have to be implemented in defiance of a world wide oligarchy that seems intent on controlling everyone.

Socialism (or communism) anyone? That perennially sounds good, with the idea of “from each according to ability, to each according to need.” The unsolvable problem with communism is that in the real world the bureaucracy empowered to determine who should give and receive becomes the seat of elitist power. It is then indistinguishable from fascism and folds easily into the control of that same international oligarchy.

Libertarianism sounds good, with the idea that total economic freedom will bring about socially meaningful freedom for all. However, for that to work we must have a much higher level of social consciousness than is in evidence today. Without that heightened moral thinking, a libertarian society is likely to quickly devolve into a neo-feudal corporatism, which would also, in our modern world, be indistinguishable from fascism, and be easily folded into the international oligarchy.

Anarchy, the idea that we should live without any government, has herds of fans in this era. Mostly though, we should notice that the biggest fans are the kind of strong armed thugs, and their henchmen, who would just love to not have any organized resistance to their having free rein over everyone else. Another strong constituency of anarchy seems to be elderly folks with government pensions. More on that in a bit.

Once again, a much more elevated moral thinking, on the part of the vast majority of people, would be necessary for anarchy to not fall into chaos. When it does inevitably fall into chaos it will in turn result in the masses clamoring for the international oligarchy to come in and save them.

Another approach, advocated by some very well meaning folks, is the call to a community based society. This idea actually underlies all the other ideas. It arouses strong emotion because the diminishment of community, of the spirit of community, is the leading cause and symptom of our declining republic.

Almost all of us have long yearned for a more sincere and nurturing connection with community. Unfortunately, it seems that the oligarchy knows this about us, and is constantly abusing our striving for community, monetizing it through entertainments, and weaponizing it via religious and political movements. Can you say “cult?” Jonestown and the Branch Davidians are two prominent examples of historic cults and their risks. There are thousands of others.

Even where modern informal community seems to work, where nominal anarchy is observed, it is often facilitated by elderly or disabled members who receive government funding. Without that subsidy, one wonders if such communities will sustain for long, and if they do; if they will continue to have absolutely no government. Frankly, I doubt it but wish them well, and plan on copying them to the degree they discover an approach that works.

Make no mistake, a lot of these ideas actually make some sense, and should be given a fair chance to work. But of course, no matter the idea it stands little chance of making it past our oligarchic masters. That is a truth we simply must acknowledge. Anything that might be done along any of those lines will in reality only be “allowed” by them, so participants will never be more than kept pets. Kind of museum pieces, like some of those “off limits” islands in the Indian Ocean.

If anything starts growing that might actually threaten the ruling status of the oligarchy, it will be systematically eradicated like weeds in a modern corn field. The oligarchy is into mono-cultural agribusiness, and is allergic to self sufficient small farms. Consequently, it is obviously certain that that is the mode in which they intend to farm the human race.

The upshot is that the only way any of our modern revolutionary ideas will be truly established is if we regain control of our own government first. That is the reason the only real play that we, the people, have is to first revive our original Constitution.

It is just as feasible a concept of government as any of the others currently on offer, and it has the advantage that we might actually, if courageous and creative enough, establish it over the opposition of the oligarchy. . This form of political revolution is uniquely achievable because it is based on a conservative return to our liberal Constitution. Kind of going back to the future. That happy coincidence of social forces has historically been America's bedrock advantage, and has always proven to be an unbeatable combination.

The ultimate point to consider, when talking with hopeful revolutionaries, is that when we revive a true use of our Constitution, we will have a form of government within which all the other ideas about government can be tried and proved. We could all organize ourselves, and move to communities of agreement, and freely live out the utopian vision we each believe in. We will be able to learn from our own experiences, and the experiences of other communities as we all struggle to once again take on the powers and duties of free self government.

When we are free, in our own communities, to live out our idealistic visions, we will still be enveloped by a system of checks and balances, preventing the worst of extremist thinking from becoming oppressive on the local (or state) level. As I read it, our national system is idealistically supposed to be a germination bed for LCMSG. Instead of ignoring and squandering that glorious heritage, we should embrace and improve on it. Especially so since, with a long view of our history, we can see that the original American experiment was a raging success.

Where local community was truly empowered, a republican spirit thrived in the hearts of the American people. Regrettably, that didn't really happen in some places, but the aroused citizenry that grew in many communities nationwide is the only true greatness America ever displayed. That citizenry, remaining aroused for generations, grew enterprise and innovation like mushrooms after a rainstorm, and lived out a spirit of political reform the world has never before known. Eighty years after our experiment began, we had become a nation with millions of people who were willing to fight, die, and even kill to abolish legal slavery. Quite the elevation of morality in a very short time.

LCMSG is an architecture of government that tends to produce a citizenry infused with a reform minded republican spirit, and very importantly, no other system of government does that. But let it be quickly added that the United States of America is not the only place with that form of government. A number of other countries have it. Such as Finland, Switzerland, and etc., and in some of them it is working quite well because the people are working their system as designed. Which is what we should do.

The abiding blessing of Local Community Moral Self Government (LCMSG) is that in that structure human beings tend to develop an elevating moral consciousness. Being compelled to wrestle with real decisions about how we govern ourselves tends to motivate individuals to become better people. That is because they then witness how socially harmful immoral behavior is.

Even if that experience doesn't cause folks to change religions, it will tend to impel them to initiate laws and customs designed to get their ideals functioning. Individuals will then tend to be sincere about trying to make their local system work effectively, because they will have a voice in forming that system. They will all (for the most part), that is to say, we will all, become much more morally minded, at least in the light of local moral thinking. That effect, in the long term, will tend to transform us, as a people, into a nation which can make those utopian ideals work. This is the way to evolve toward that enlightened universal mindset our spiritual instincts call us to.

That is why we should all commit to reviving the Constitution of the United States of America..

Happy 4^th of July.

The Constitution and B2 Strikes in Iran

With the recent bombing of Iran (and other events) the Constitution has become a hot a topic of general conversation these days. From the rights of illegal immigrants, to the call for “No Kings,” to the ending of nationwide injunctions, to due process denied to J6ers, along with the action in Iran, many of us seem to be greatly concerned that the Constitution is being violated. That concern is probably a good thing, if, that is, it means folks are actually reading and considering our six page founding document, and not just using it as an empty slogan.

On a personal note, I have been hoping for this day since 1964 when I was eleven years old. At that time, being a grieving yet gung ho devotee of the recently assassinated President Kennedy, I was shocked to learn that some folks were protesting against the Vietnam War. In the newspaper account, one of the protesters let it be known that if someone wanted to understand his opposition to the war, they should read the Constitution. That seemed a fair challenge, so I did read it, and found that it did indeed call for Congress to declare war, which had not been done. Even though the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was soon used as a fig leaf, it never, in my mind, satisfied that constitutional requirement.

In the years that soon followed, I was always disappointed to find that I was the only one at any anti war protest who was there to defend the Constitution. Others, mostly leftists, would inform me that it was an immoral war, to which I would respond that was why we would never have declared it if we had followed constitutional process. They didn't have an answer to that, but still didn't embrace the Constitution. Alas, there were also no conservatives, at that time, with the temerity to do so. As the years rolled along, I came to realize that most folks (wrongly) considered the Constitution as something that the government used to force the people to do something distasteful, kind of like taking nasty medicine (think the civil rights movement). The idea that the people should insist that the government adhere to the Constitution didn't even enter their minds.

Using the intervening years before the Kuwait War, I developed a rationale about why it is such a good idea to follow the Constitution, and declare war. By insisting war be declared before engaging in action, we force ourselves to come to clear minded thinking about the goals of said war, and to achieve a clear national consensus that the people actually do want to fight it. In short, following constitutional guidelines is a way to prevent needless war, and to win the ones we do decide to fight.

In August of 1990, following Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, an opportunity came to present this thinking in public. I did so, sending it to my then US Representative Pat Schroeder, and calling in to various talk radio shows. In the end, she sponsored a bill using that rationale, which also appeared in the final Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

The war over Kuwait in 1991 was followed by the war in Afghanistan in 2001, and the (second) war in Iraq in 2003, both of which also gained Congress's approval of AUMF's (Authorization of the Use of Military Force). Such authorizations come short, in my opinion, of a declaration of war. There is, however, a little noted power in the Constitution that enables Congress to make military decisions short of declared war.

The pertinent constitutional passages are found in Article 1, section 8. In subsection, or paragraph, 11 is found the passage that empowers Congress to declare war. Just previous to that passage, in subsection 10, Congress has the power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.” This is the actual basis for Congress to authorize the use of force short of war.

This is a very important constitutional stipulation, especially in this era of irregular, asymmetrical warfare. By using this power effectively, we can be flexible enough to maintain our national security in a changing world, and yet remain faithful to our Constitution.. By making open and purposeful use of this power, we would make it to where the whole world would know when we are debating about our response to some foreign threat. They would know when we were just talking, and more importantly, they would know when we have made a decision and are moving into action. Certainly any operational details must be kept strictly confidential, but once the decision is made by our Congress, the Executive would be authorized to respond with military force, at a time of their choosing, within the limits of the resolution. What's more, these resolutions should probably have sunset provisions to prevent their misuse as some carte blanc permission for future administrations to wage forever wars.

This constitutional process could have been used to our advantage in the recent situation regarding Iran's plan to acquire nuclear weapons. Years ago we could have, and should have, agreed to authorize the President to take whatever steps might be necessary to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Their pursuit of such weapons is, first of all, a violation of the non proliferation treaty, so it is an offense against the law of nations. Secondly, given the suicidal martyr focus of that regime, them having nuclear weapons is a dire threat to our national (and the world's) security. We could have mustered a majority in Congress to vote for that authorization twenty years ago. Or even two months ago. It would have been best to get authorization in the President's hands a while back though, because waiting until the last minute removes the element of surprise

If we had done that, events might very well have played out exactly as they have, with some important improvements. President Trump could have had an even stronger hand in negotiations, with a clear understanding by all that our nation was behind him. Then, as now, the threat could have been minimized by the bombs, but the Constitution would have been properly applied, and thereby defended.

The second thing is that when we work our system the way it is designed, and truly debate when the threat of war looms, the deliberations of our Congress might carry great weight globally. By insisting on open public debate about any particular war, we could use that congressional debate, in a creative manner, as an effective enhancement of our negotiating strength. Some random congress person could say something that causes a foreign adversary to realize we see what they are doing, and thus modify their actions at that moment, obviating any need for a new law. Effectively using our constitution's stipulations in that manner might be a way to avoid waging a war at all.

That brings up one short, but vital, aside. A lot of folks have begun to lose faith in our system of government, but the eternal truth is that our system, like any system, only works when we work our system. Instead of feeling defeat and despair about what has been done to foul and degrade our system, we should envision how much we could gain by applying our system of self government, which has somehow miraculously survived, in the way that the founders designed it to be applied.

Back to the subject of war. Virtually any cause to use military force should be referred for congressional approval prior to kinetic action commencing. The only exception is in the case of surprise attack, when there might be no time for Congress to meet. That is the precise eventuality that the War Powers Act was intended to provide for.

That is how we could, and should, deal with war. The truth, however, is that we have forsaken the Constitution in this regard, and have instead, shamefully and unwittingly, embraced the dubious charms of militarism. Militarism is a term used with some hesitation, but it is nonetheless used accurately. Consider the case. Before we, as a nation, take kinetic military action, we aren't allowed to have public, or even congressional, debate about it. The fear must be, one assumes, that the information regarding the decision for war is just too sensitive.

After the action, and, God forbid, during any subsequent combat, our troops are engaged in the field, so any debate on the right or wrong of the policy must be muted, lest it further endanger or demoralize the troops. To sum up: We have a situation where those who control our military power are able to use it however and whenever they choose, for reasons that ought not be publicly opposed, either before or after the fact.

This obviously fits the definition of militarism. In fact, if we care to look we can see a strain of militaristic thinking overriding constitutional thinking going clear back to 1950. There is an old saying that Rome was not built in a day. The pertinent addendum to that is that Rome did not fall in a day either. In fact, what we think of as the greatness of Rome, with the opulent wealth, the games, the extensive empire, the commerce and roads, mostly grew after the republic had fallen.

There is no doubt that a Ceasar, or a dictator, once in control of a failing republic, can muster, mobilize and coordinate the resources of the nation in a way that a republic, especially a failing republic, with its corruption and dysfunction, can't match.

The fatal flaw with this approach is that by ignoring and obviating the republic (in our case, the Constitution) the nation loses the citizenship, love of nation and republican virtues in the people which can thrive only in a living republic. So as time goes on, there are far fewer resources, especially human resources, for succeeding dictators to call upon. Eventually, no one is left who cares to defend the national frontiers, and barbarians destroy the remnants of the once glorious republic.

In the case of Rome, the true decline started when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, to, in an adversarial manner, assume command of the nation. In America, probably the first instance of our stumbling regarding constitutional war making was, as mentioned, in 1950 when President Truman ignored constitutional process while getting us into the Korean War. This is not a trivial matter either, because subverting our republic could well be the long term strategic goal of our enemies.

Foreign adversaries might have been outsmarting us then, and in like manner playing us today. In a battle of civilizations, any enemy of a republic would always see constitutional alienation as a most effective tactic.. Inducing us into misusing war powers will always look like a good plan to any Marxist, dictatorial or theocratic foe because of the way it alienates the American people from their own Constitution. Consider how this might have been planned in 1950.

The Russians always were a bunch of chess playing schemers. This scheme, if it is not just a conspiracy theory, is a fine example of a chess gambit. First, they concocted a reason to temporarily exit, to boycott, the UN. It was the choice of the USSR to do so in January of 1950, in protest of the fact that the UN admitted only Nationalist China, under Chiang Kai-Shek, and excluded Mainland Red China under Mao Zedong.

Then, in June of 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea. The USSR (which would have seen the invasion coming) was still boycotting the UN. President Truman was striving to gain the UN credence as a germinal world government. It was knowingly stated that it would probably take a couple of weeks for Congress to pass a Declaration of War. Truman knew that if he raised the issue in Congress, the USSR would be aware of it and walk back into the UN. They could then, as a permanent member of the Security Council, veto any UN commitment in Korea, thereby isolating America in its declared war in Korea.

So Truman went quickly to the UN, got virtually unanimous approval for war, and operated under that authority to conduct the war. Then, with UN authority in hand, he was embarrassed into denying the need for congressional approval, calling it not a war, but a “police action,” The American people were told that for some nebulous reason arising from modernism, we shouldn't actually declare war these days. But where, precisely, in the Constitution, is the President given the power to conduct Police Actions?

The point remains that foreign foes have every reason to try to mount challenges, through the asymmetrical means our military might forces them to choose, which are intended to stress our constitutional system and weaken us as a nation. This mistaken militaristic thinking, deciding that constitutional due process must be ignored, began with Truman in 1950, but it has been repeated many times since then. A plethora of wrong headed decisions to engage in military actions have been made, based on the so called conventional wisdom that the Constitution is somehow obsolete in this nuclear age, so we must go to war based on the impulses of one man. The antidote to this mistake, which is possibly an ongoing attack on our republic, is to redouble our fealty to the Constitution.

Even in this latest instance, while one can applaud the efficiency, precision, and minimal loss of life of the B2 strike on Iran, we could still do better. Even though President Trump could technically be considered for impeachment for this act, he won't be. Especially given the decades long history of other presidents doing the same kind of thing. But what he, and we, should consider is that some other person will occupy that office in just a few short years. The well thought out impact of this latest raid demonstrated that President Trump is sincerely a man of peace, who doesn't relish human death, nor does he seem to consider violence a preferred means of political resolution.

With that spirit guiding our national mind, we should hope he, and we, and the presidents and people who follow, will see that the surest way to minimize the future threat of America engaging in unnecessary death and war is to turn back to the Constitution. Whenever time allows, Congress should debate articles of war, or any military action short of war. Congress should soberly and publicly decide whether or not this greatest nation in human history will once again enter into the horrors of using our weaponry against other living, breathing human beings. That is the best way for us to minimize the use of force, and to preserve our precious Constitution.